Anyone Else Have Accuracy Problems with the 454424?

[Piedmont]

Few here are old enough to have Elmer's influence on their shooting. But face it, he would be shooting LBT's today if he was with us.

That second sentence is one of the silliest statements you have made on this board. For all his attributes Elmer had an ego. It was a KEITH bullet! You and many others conveniently forget Elmer's very blunt Belding and Mull designs that preceded the Keith design, which was Elmer's improvement on them. The blunter Belding and Mulls didn't shoot well at long range.

[RobS]

Well the thing here is there are people who have never shot anything but a Keith SWC or possibly very little of another design and have given their advice. I've shot many, many Keiths both the 454424 and the RCBS 270-SAA or the various group buys variants of this RCBS design and had very accurate results from them. The 454424 had only a few loads that worked with great accuracy, one being a 2400 load and the other being a 4227. The longer 280 grain Keith was much more forgiving and I had 3 to 4 loads that worked very well with that design. The big difference I've noted is that the LFN's/RFN's seem to be able to have more boolit/powder combos that make it more forgiving to find equivalent accuracy so it becomes a more useful design to me as a person who loads his own.

35 Whelen you mentioned you have the NOE 200 grain RFN and are comparing it's accuracy to a 240-250 grain Keith. This really isn't a comparison since the two are not in the same weight area and I'm pretty sure the Keith would have more bearing surface as well. The longer bearing surface of the heavier Keith may keep the boolit base in the cylinder throats as the nose makes contact with the forcing cone where as the lighter RFN may not have the cylinder throat support at the base of the boolit. This very reason is why I prefer heavier designs.

I have the 45 2.1 designed 454640 (453640) that is the ars end of the Keith 454424 with a LFN style design nose profile and with the same .320" meplat. I would more than happy to cast some of these up from the BRP mold I have. This is a nice 260ish grain area design that I lean to when I shoot this weight of bullet. The Lee 255 grain RFN is also a good accurate boolit too but I don't have the mold any longer as it didn't cast at .454 so it didn't quite fit my needs.

If you ever want to experiment I'm sure that many here would send you out a few hundred boolits to play around with no questions asked. Let me know if you ever want to try some of the 454640s.

[44man]

That second sentence is one of the silliest statements you have made on this board. For all his attributes Elmer had an ego. It was a KEITH bullet! You and many others conveniently forget Elmer's very blunt Belding and Mull designs that preceded the Keith design, which was Elmer's improvement on them. The blunter Belding and Mulls didn't shoot well at long range.

He DID have an ego but was still a great man and instrumental in my shooting long ranges unheard of.
You still read the same today where a WFN will go unstable past 50 yards and that is not true since I kept every WFN on a steel ram at 500 meters. They are my most accurate boolits.
I believe Elmer would be shooting a better boolit today. He was close but his cigar went out.

[9.3X62AL]

In the stated interest of not disparaging a pioneering bullet designer, I should also add Ray Thompson to the list--right along with Elmer Keith and Veral Smith. I have no idea how many #358156 and #429244 I have sent downrange through my Magnum handguns, but it is in the "many thousands". Do those two EVER shoot!

A question for those more learned on Lyman history......is Lyman's #452490 (SWC/GC) also a Thompson design? It differs a bit, not having its suffix number indicate nominal grain weight and in having a step shank for its gas check. It sure shoots well in my Ruger BisHawk x 45 Colt, and even did so before I opened the throats to .453".

[Piedmont]

You still read the same today where a WFN will go unstable past 50 yards and that is not true since I kept every WFN on a steel ram at 500 meters. They are my most accurate boolits.
I believe Elmer would be shooting a better boolit today. He was close but his cigar went out.

How heavy and how fast? To stabilize the large meplat you need speed and a long bearing surface helps. Did you ever wonder on your cork screwing Keiths about their size? Most of those 429421 Ideal and Lyman bullet molds were undersized for the cylinder throats of the day. The base band will bump up with high pressure loads, but the rest won't. If it doesn't fit it will cork screw in flight because it was started tipped. That isn't a fault of the bullet but of the person who loaded them and didn't understand they needed to be large enough in diameter that they did not tip when started.
I guess we can partly blame the mold maker or the gun maker and those older S&W and Rugers had throats that were in the .432-.434 range. Back then even fewer understood how to make a revolver and load accurate.


I would bet when you do up one of your home made WFN molds that it fits your cylinder throats. And I know you use heavy bullets and push them fast. Even if you sized them .431" the longer bearing surface can't tip as much if it is undersized.

The Lyman 424454 that is the subject of this thread uses a larger meplat in terms of a percentage than the .38, .41 and .44 versions. If everything isn't perfect it is logical that accuracy would go to pot more often than with the smaller meplat versions.


Brian Pearce has stability problems (accuracy) with normal weight WFNs (240-260 grains) in .44 at 50 yards, not 500 from his .44 mags. I worked with an Ogival Wadcutter .44 (a WFN but more of the same that dropped at 230 grains from wheel weights) and could never get it to match other bullets for accuracy at even 25 yards from my revolvers. I have a 280 grain. .44 WFN that has shot fine for me but I never shot it past 100 yds. and mine fit my cylinder throats.

If I were designing a revolver bullet for long range accuracy I think I would go with a round nose with a long bearing surface and it would fit my cylinder throats. Elmer went with the flat nose for his all around bullet because he wanted if for game shooting, but he discovered back in the 1920s not to make the meplat too big, or it wouldn't shoot at long range.

[44man]

How heavy and how fast? To stabilize the large meplat you need speed and a long bearing surface helps. Did you ever wonder on your cork screwing Keiths about their size? Most of those 429421 Ideal and Lyman bullet molds were undersized for the cylinder throats of the day. The base band will bump up with high pressure loads, but the rest won't. If it doesn't fit it will cork screw in flight because it was started tipped. That isn't a fault of the bullet but of the person who loaded them and didn't understand they needed to be large enough in diameter that they did not tip when started.
I guess we can partly blame the mold maker or the gun maker and those older S&W and Rugers had throats that were in the .432-.434 range. Back then even fewer understood how to make a revolver and load accurate.


I would bet when you do up one of your home made WFN molds that it fits your cylinder throats. And I know you use heavy bullets and push them fast. Even if you sized them .431" the longer bearing surface can't tip as much if it is undersized.

The Lyman 424454 that is the subject of this thread uses a larger meplat in terms of a percentage than the .38, .41 and .44 versions. If everything isn't perfect it is logical that accuracy would go to pot more often than with the smaller meplat versions.


Brian Pearce has stability problems (accuracy) with normal weight WFNs (240-260 grains) in .44 at 50 yards, not 500 from his .44 mags. I worked with an Ogival Wadcutter .44 (a WFN but more of the same that dropped at 230 grains from wheel weights) and could never get it to match other bullets for accuracy at even 25 yards from my revolvers. I have a 280 grain. .44 WFN that has shot fine for me but I never shot it past 100 yds. and mine fit my cylinder throats.

If I were designing a revolver bullet for long range accuracy I think I would go with a round nose with a long bearing surface and it would fit my cylinder throats. Elmer went with the flat nose for his all around bullet because he wanted if for game shooting, but he discovered back in the 1920s not to make the meplat too big, or it wouldn't shoot at long range.

Never had corkscrewing Keiths. Size was correct back them. I did have great accuracy to what were my standards then. However I still cast a hard boolit. I think hardness is the key for a Keith, don't wipe the shoulder on the cone. My early .44's had great dimensions and alignment. Elmer's guns were mostly hand crafted customs. I think the better the alignment the gun has, the better it is for a Keith. It brings the question, were guns built with more care long ago? Seems my old rifles were the same, deadly and nothing new can match them.

[35 Whelen]

It's interesting this whole "Keith bullets are out of date, no longer relevant, etc." yet when you look at commercially available moulds, and I'm talking about moulds that are kept in stock at places lime Midway, the overwhelming majority of them are SWC's of one flavor or another. What works, sells. End of discussion. If a bullet design won't provide good accuracy, then no one will use it.

Regarding the other design I may wind up trying something different. I'm certainly open to it.

35W

[Char-Gar]

That second sentence is one of the silliest statements you have made on this board. For all his attributes Elmer had an ego. It was a KEITH bullet! You and many others conveniently forget Elmer's very blunt Belding and Mull designs that preceded the Keith design, which was Elmer's improvement on them. The blunter Belding and Mulls didn't shoot well at long range.

Ever since the WFN bullet came on the scene, folks have been saying the Keith bullets is over, done and kaput as a game bullet. Ego is not confined to just Elmer Keith. Each side of this says they have proof positive their idea is better.

This whole argument is an exercise in opinion mongering, chest beating and ego boosting. Disciples line up to join one cult or another and are taught the holy writ of each position, complete with pics of targets and dead critters.

It is my opinion that the dead critter doesn't give a fig about the shape of the bullet that killed it. Dead is dead and there is no deader. I think it is a lesson in human nature, that some folks actually believe that one these bullet shapes is clearly superior to the other. Not only do they believe it, but they will defend their position with their last breath.

There is one thing of which I am fairly certain, and that is Elmer Keith would not be shooting ANYTHING he did not design. Everything he designed was better than anything designed by somebody else, at least in his opinion.

[DougGuy]

You also have to figure that every good shooting load is a combination of boolit shape (design) hardness, rifling, rifling twist, powder, primer, etc and only when you have things working together will the gun shoot good.

That means that for every crappy shooting Keith boolit, if you mess with the other variables, you will eventually hit on a combination that causes it to shoot well. In the same gun with the same brass, powder, and primer that it shot badly with. Miss one part of the combination, and all goes out the window.

Same with the RNFP and LFN designs. EVERY BOOLIT needs the right combo or it will not shoot to it's best.

Saying xxx is better than yyy is a moot point unless ALL of the other variables are taken into consideration.

[GoodAlloy]

I cast/shoot a 454424 bullet for my two 45 Colts, a 4 5/8" Ruger NM Vaquero and a 4 3/4" Uberti SA. This bullet just barely shoots OK at 25 yds. (3" - 4") and at 50 yds. I have a hard time hitting my 12" steel disk. I know it's not the revolvers because they both shoot 45-270 SAA from a Miha mould very well.
The 454424 mould is a 4-cavity NOE I recently purchased and it seems to cast really good bullets which causes me to question the design. Varying the sized diameter, lube and bullet hardness seems to make little if any difference. Thoughts?

35W

What powder charge are you running at.
most times to get the best accuracy out of the Short bearing Keith's you have to run it a little warm and use at least a hardness of around 14 or 15 Brinell.

[GoodAlloy]

The more bearing surface you have the softer Alloy you can run. the less bearing surface the harder you gotta use to grip the rifling and get started straighter

[9.3X62AL]

What powder charge are you running at.
most times to get the best accuracy out of the Short bearing Keith's you have to run it a little warm and use at least a hardness of around 14 or 15 Brinell.

This may be part of why the Keiths shoot well for me--my general-purpose alloy is 92/6/2, which runs about 13-14 BHn.

[Piedmont]

44man, Refresh my memory. I remember you writing (not in this thread) of watching bullets corkscrew at longer ranges through a spotting scope. I wrongly remembered it to be with Keiths. What is the story?

[44man]

44man, Refresh my memory. I remember you writing (not in this thread) of watching bullets corkscrew at longer ranges through a spotting scope. I wrongly remembered it to be with Keiths. What is the story?

I did say that but they were 240 gr jacketed from the S&W 29's. The twist is 18-3/4" and the silhouette loads were too fast for the rifling. Going to a 250 gr stopped it.
It was overspin that went to sleep at long range. The extra length and weight brought down velocity just enough.
I shot the 429421 with 22 gr of 2400 without a problem.
Now look at these targets shot with the RCBS 44-245-SWC. Might be a little hard to see but a softer Keith of 20-22 BHN shot the same at 25 as a 30 BHN did at 50. I started with air cooled WW metal and worked up to water dropped and then to a harder alloy. Across the board, as lead got harder, accuracy increased.
25 yard groups with 30 BHN were super. Attachment 121839Attachment 121840
I used the same loads of Unique, 25 yards on the left and 50 right.
I can only surmise after many of these tests that if I keep the shoulder hard, they shoot good. The ogive does not touch anything for guidance and is why Elmer wanted a band in the throats but since few guns have perfect alignment from throats to forcing cone and rifling, what would you take away from it?
My favorite load with this boolit is 7 gr of Unique, pop can accurate at 50 but it does not do well with a hefty load of 296 or 2400.
Now look at the RD 265 at 50 and 100 yards. Attachment 121844 I hit low at 100 so aimed higher for the last shot, the boolit has done many 3/4" groups at 50. 22 gr of 296. Shoots great from a S&W too.
Then my 330 gr boolit at 200 yards, made my own molds. Attachment 121846
21 gr of 296. The ogive is cut to match my 11* forcing cone angle but it still shoots from any Ruger. Common to get 1/2" at 50.
I have no ego, I do this work to help everyone and my work will never stop.
You might like a Keith but nobody has ever shot it to my liking, if you do, please show us.

[44man]

I also get a laugh from those that want a mild kicking load with heavy boolits so I took one that was posted, touted to shoot good. I first tried with the Lee 310 as posted and moved to my 330 gr. A revelation about what some guys do.Attachment 121849 Yeah, the boolit that did 1-5/16" at 200 does this at 50 when not spun up.
Wonder why I tell you that a 300+ boolit will not shoot at 1000 fps or less?

[Piedmont]

44man, How did you reach the conclusion that the inaccuracy of your 240 grain loads was a twist issue?

[44man]

44man, How did you reach the conclusion that the inaccuracy of your 240 grain loads was a twist issue?

Now Hang on a little, the 240 Hornady bullets would do 1/2" at 50 meters from all the 29's I owned. Over spin does no harm. The only thing I noticed was as distance changed the POI was a tiny bit different depending on where in the rotation the bullet was.
But it could be seen in the spotting scope. It is a strange thing to watch and is very fast.
Going to a heavier bullet and all I could see was the base going nice and even. A Ruger did not have the rotation with a 240 gr.
UNDER SPIN is nasty for accuracy so what ever boolit you shoot, it will want it's own velocity and spin. I prefer a faster twist myself for a heavy boolit so it does not need driven so fast.
A 300, 310 or 320 in the .44 Ruger with a 1 in 20" twist must go 1300+ fps. Mine are 1316 fps.
99% of stability problems come from not shooting a boolit fast enough.
If you want a Unique load for the Lee 310 or the LBT 320 I will just say go buy a can of 296.
The cardboard target I showed was my 330 gr boolit grossly UNDER SPUN.
You get similar results with real short barrels where you can't reach stability velocity for certain boolits. I have always said that as a barrel is shortened the twist should be faster.
Sadly most revolver shooters ignore twist. I have never seen a little over spin to hurt a thing.